Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides clear instructions about how and under what
circumstances the United States government may acquire title to property located within a state:

"Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and
the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to
exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other
needful Buildings."

This was interpreted by the first congresses to require that when any Federal installation was to
be built within the boundaries of the state, the government had to purchase the property (unless it
lay within the Public Domain) and the state legislature had to pass a law agreeing to the
acquisition of the property. From the earliest days of the Republic, states have proved very
agreeable to government installations, both from the money spent locally to build the fort or
court-house, as well as the government payroll which would follow.
The process was very simple: a state would, through its members of Congress and senators,
argue that the National Interest required that a fort be built, such as one in the middle of
Charleston Harbor. The necessary legislation would pass Congress and be signed by the
President. Then the state legislature would pass a law granting title (if the state owned the
property) or affirming title (if the land was privately owned) to the United States. The one
general exception was a clause inserted to allow state officials to enter the Federal property to
seize fugitives from justice or to serve civil process papers. Depending upon the property in
question there might also be affirmations of the right of eminent domain, i.e., if the private owner
was unwilling to sell, the property would be appraised and, under the Fifth Amendment, the
government would judicially take title, paying the owner the appraised price. In other cases, the
state's approval was contingent upon the Federal government using the land. South Carolina's
legislature was so anxious to have Fort Sumter, that it provided for the first two and left out the
third exception.
It is important to note that then - and now - the government refused to accept property where
there was any other restriction. The state gave up all rights it might have in the property.
Otherwise Congress would refuse to appropriate the necessary funds to build the installation. The
States bent over backwards to make certain they got their share - and then some - of the Federal
budget, including quickly removing impediments to the government acquiring title.
And it is important to note that the title given to the United States was fee simple, with specific
notice that the property was exempt from any state or local taxes. Except for the qualification that
the property could be entered to seize fugitives, the property passed in perpetuity to the Federal
government.
Two examples of how this worked will make this clearer:
In 1827, Fort Leavenworth was established in the Indian Country. The land was not in a territory
or state and was part of the Public Domain. The Interior Department transferred ownership to the
War Department. There was no need to seek a state's approval.
However, in 1861, the area was admitted to the Union as part of the state of Kansas. And the new
state quickly passed legislation to permit the government to continue to own the military
reservation. Of course Kansas in 1861 had every reason to approve this: aside from the military
payroll, there was the little matter of the Civil War!
Notice that Kansas had to approve the transfer and continuation of the fort, even though there
was no question about the legal title of the fort and, even though the land had been acquired
before Kansas existed as a state and had been used by the Federal Government for twenty-five
years as a military garrison, the new state still had to approve the use of the property.
The other example is Arlington Estate, the home of George Washington Custis, who had died in
1857, and willed it to his grandson, George Washington Custis Lee, with a life estate to his
daughter, Mary Ann Randolph Lee, wife of Robert E. Lee. In May 1861, the property, consisting
of 1,073.4 acres, was occupied by the United States because of its strategic location "within the
military lines and the immediate scene of important military operations against an enemy then in
arms against the government." Since Mary Lee failed to appear to pay the taxes on the land, in
1863, title passed to the Untied States "for Government use for war, military, charitable, and
educational purposes." Of course a portion became Arlington National Cemetery and the
remainder Fort Myer.
After the Civil War and after the death of his mother, G. W. C. Lee filed suit, claiming the
government's seizure was illegal. In 1883, the Supreme Court ruled in Lee's favor. Since the
government did not want to move the thousands of bodies already there, to say nothing of giving
up the use of Fort Myer, and since the Lee family did not want to move back into Arlington
House, with the memories of those graves, the United States accepted an offer of Lee to retain
title in return for $150,000.
On March 31, 1883, the Secretary of War (ironically he was Robert Todd Lincoln!) paid G. W.
C. Lee $125,000, conveying the estate in fee simple. The remaining $25,000 was retained until
the legislature of Virginia passed the necessary law required by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution. On March 25, 1883, Virginia having agreed to the transfer, Robert Lincoln paid Lee
the remaining $25,000.
The Virginia act, approved February 23, 1884, reads:

"Whereas Robert T. Lincoln, Secretary of War of the United States, has made application to this
General Assembly, for its consent to the purchase by authorities of the United States of a tract of
land described as follows: [legal description deleted]; therefore,
"1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the consent of this state is hereby
given to the purchase of said tract of land, but this consent is given subject to the following terms
and conditions, to wit: That this State retains concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over
said tract of land, so that courts, magistrates and officers of this state may take cognizance ,
execute such process, and discharge such legal functions within the same as me be not
incompatible with the consent hereby given.
"2. That said tract of land and the buildings now or that may be hereafter erected thereon, and any
property of the United States, on such tract, are hereby exempted from all taxes imposed by this
state, or by the constituted authorities of Alexandria County, and this exemption shall be in force
from the date of said purchase by the United States, …and shall continue only so long as the
United States shall be and remain the owner of said tract of land; and all taxes, and county,
township and district levies, due or claimed to be due, for, against or upon said real estate since
the same went into possession of and has been held and used by the United States authorities, as
aforesaid, are hereby released and discharged."

Fort Sumter

The same process was followed in the acquisition of the various harbor installations in and
around Charleston: Forts Moultrie and Sumter, Castle Pinckney, and Charleston Arsenal.
In the specific case of Fort Sumter, in 1827, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun had approved the
construction of a new fort in the harbor. The first appropriations were made by Congress in 1828
and construction started on the harbor shoal. In November, 1834, after the United States had
expended roughly $200,000, one Major William Laval, Esq., claimed title to the "land" which
included the under-construction fort.
A South Carolina statute passed in 1791 established a method by which the state disposed of its
vacant lands (we tend to forget that much of the territory of the states was empty in the
Nineteenth Century: in the original thirteen states, this land was held by the states; in the
remaining part of the country, it was held by the Federal government, except in Texas, where the
public lands were retained by the state when it was admitted). Laval used the law to claim title to
the land - but he described it in a vague manner and given the lack of decent maps of any of the
country, his vagueness hid the exact location of the tract he claimed.
When Laval appeared on the scene, the Corps of Engineers stopped work and asked for
instructions. It appeared that Laval had filed a proper claim for the land - except that the "land"
was below low tide and therefore exempt from purchase.
Well South Carolina was aghast! They did not want to lose the fort to protect themselves, nor the
payrolls that would come with the completed fort.
The result was a state law:

Committee on Federal RelationsIn the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to
the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal
Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South
Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That
all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof,
shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be
implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt
from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any
individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval
and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of
the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne
and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners
on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the
opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper
legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said
Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By
order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of
Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

Poor Maj. Laval lost his scheme to blackmail the United States!
For those wishing to further pursue the ownership of Fort Sumter, et. al, most major libraries will
have American State Papers: Documents Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United
States, Military Affairs, vol. 5, Twenty-third Congress, Second Session, No. 591, "The
Construction of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina," pp. 463-472.
The War Department became concerned in the 1890s that they might not have clear title to all of
their various installations, so they had a civilian attorney in the Judge Advocate General's office
research the chain of title. Fortunately for us, not only were the various National Cemeteries still
War Department properties, but so were most of the forts used in the early Republic, the Civil
War and the Indian Wars.
The result was James B. McCrellis, Military Reservations, National Military Parks, and National
Cemeteries. Title and Jurisdiction, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1898. If you can
not locate a hard copy, CIS has copied McCrellis on microfiche: U.S. Executive Branch
Documents, 1789-1909: War Department, W 1002.8.